Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Welcome to the blog! There is so much material to cover this term, and so little time, that we are launching right in on Wednesday. The brief Hobbes excerpt from his Leviathan will be available to pick up on Monday in the slot on my office door, 284 Kravis. We will also be covering the first 4 chapters of Locke's 2nd Treatise. This is a fabulous comparison and contrast. Both philosophers talk in terms of contract as legitimating political power, and in terms of laws of nature revealed through reason. But what they mean by contract, power, reason, laws of nature, rights of nature, freedom/liberty, etc. turns out to be completely different in every case. Our challenge is to figure out what their arguments are, and in particular how they use each of the key terms in their respective arguments, and how these usages differ. Be sure to bring both texts to class, and get ready to dive in!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I found both readings very very interesting, especially considering their historical contexts. I imagine that at the time of publication, the law of god was assumed around of world to be more or less synonymous with the law of nature. Whether directly or indirectly, both Locke and Hobbes make reference to scripture when discussing human nature. I find this discussion of scripture most prevalent in the Locke reading, such as on page 12 where he proposes the idea that "God hath certainly appointed government to restrain the partiality and violence of men." If all there was to 'know' was God, given the lack of scientific discovery at the time, this interpretation of from where human nature and laws are derived makes sense, but I tend to agree more with Hobbes more realistic description of human nature and the derivatives of how we organize ourselves. Hobbes seems to think more pessimistically that rather than just God imposing values by which humans live and organize, we organize out of a state of fear and because of self-interest. Even so, Hobbes still mentions god rather directly, stating "This is that law of the Gospel: "whatsoever you require that others should do to you, that do ye to them." (80) I think that both authors were certainly thinking about god when writing both of their works, but Locke seems to want to reconcile the holy scripture with his ideas about human nature more closely. This comparison is very interesting, because religion forms a huge foundation for much of the way the world thought about itself for many many centuries, and I am curious as to how much influence it should still have today, considering what we know to be true from science, but also what we know to be true about the history of humanity and human nature. I've always questioned how much 'God' should be apart of any description of human nature, and whether or not mention of religion delegitimizes any such description. While I think that religion is hugely important in analyzing our history of trying to define human nature, it cannot be the end all be all, which is why I tend to agree more with Hobbes descriptions of the state of war and the natural laws, even if they can sound more negative, cynical, or pessimistic than Locke. Hobbes state of nature sounds much more dangerous than Locke's, but I think it speaks more truth to human nature as I see it persist today. Despite grappling with both of these issues, the common denominator between the two authors seems to be their idea that reason is, or should be the foundation for men organizing themselves into societies.
ReplyDeleteI also found the references to scripture to be extremely interesting, primarily because of 1) How Locke's appeals to the "judicious Hooker" seemed contradictory, and 2) How the two authors adopted different rhetorical approaches, which in turn colored how their works were received.
DeleteOn this first point I began on page eight of Locke's 2nd Treatise, where the author describes a state of equality "wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another." This equality, Locke claims, forms the foundation for Christian "justice and charity," where the Golden Rule drives mankind's actions. However while Hooker refers to mankind’s “natural duty of bearing to [others] fully the like affection,” Locke goes on to describe a far more mercenary system where each person is responsible for “executing the law of nature.” The methods through which A may “do justice to an offender” may be determined by A, so long as the offender puts himself in a state of war with A; Locke admits that this would even authorize A to kill a thief, because the thief is attempting to “get [A] into his power.” Granted, this is primarily the case during the state of nature, but it seems very far removed from Hooker’s “justice and charity.” Inferring from what I’ve seen from Locke in his Letter on Toleration, as well as numerous references to a Divine being throughout the Second Treatise, I am inclined to say that Locke is being cleverer than he would have his audience know. Through appeals to scripture, he attempts to lower our guard whilst introducing his different, quite extraordinary view of civil society; given that religion “forms a huge foundation for much of the way the world thought about itself” during his time, references to God and rhetorical reconciliation with Christian values do not substantively further his arguments, but do indeed make them more palatable.
While Hobbes does indeed refer to God on multiple occasions, and claims that his many laws of nature can be summed up by the Golden Rule, he does not do the same amount of legwork as Locke does – at the very least, he is not as effective at disarming his audience. He begins the chapter by saying “nature hath made men so equal…” not “God hath made men so equal,” and seems to be encouraging a re-evaluation of moral philosophy, which is “nothing else but the science of what is good and evil in the conversation and society of mankind.” In addition to these two examples, I would be interested to see other places where he failed to be as prudent as Locke (given the knowledge that Hobbes’ Leviathan was condemned by various official churches and banned in many universities after its publication). Perhaps it is the fact that through his 19 laws of nature, he is overtly constructing his own set of values for all civil society, but I’m not quite sure Locke isn’t doing something similar.